Oh, He Did Not Just Go There

[Guest J*ingus]

get a National Holiday for Election day so as many people as possible can get out and vote.

Now THAT is a very good idea.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Democrats and Republicans are both horrid, and until the majority of the country realizes this, nothing worth while will be accomplished in this country. Everyone seems so heated in fighting for a side, that they don't realize that both major parties have sold the american people out. Enron and World Com are a result of Dems and Repubs taking bribes and hush money. Both parties were aware of the crookedness of the corporations, but like I stated in another thread, corporations are what run this country now, they basically make all the decisions. It is painfully obvious, I mean the top execs at Enron blatantly break their own company rules by selling and pulling out of stock, and selling them for millions, while telling all the backbreaking employees everything is fine, when in fact they are just trying to trick the workers into keeping their money in the CEOs pockets. That is why I say the stock market is just a big scam. Sure, you and I could make a few thousand here and a few thousand there, but it seems the only people that make the big money from it are the CEOs and Top Execs, who are already making 7 figures in the first place. I think wealth needs to be more evenly distrubted in companies. I used to work for Target Warehouse, the wage wasn't horrible, but for the slave work we did it wasn't enough, then we get news that Headquarters wants more output from us, and we all wonder why, then the next week we find out the top CEO of the company gave himself a 24% raise. WTF.......America needs to wake up to the true evil of america, Greedy corporate CEOs, believe me, they hold a lot of the power and decision making in the whitehouse/congress/senate

[Guest Some Guy]

Powerplay I'll call it a draw about the election, but why do you think JFK and RFK got shot?

 

They turned their backs on the Mafia who their dad had enlisted to help them out. The father was a degenerate gambler and a known Mob associate, he ran what the mob considered a debt (helping to steal the election) and when they asked for repayment in the form of letting one of their own back in the country RFK had him deported to Guatemala where the Mob guy (who's name I can't rememeber) had set up a fake address. That pissed off the Mob who enlisted Lee Harvy Oswald (a Marxist who hated the US, moved to Russia hated that and came back and still hated it here) to kill JFK. When he got caught the Mob sent Jack Ruby (a lower level Mob guy who owned a Strip club) to kill Oswald. Then when RFK wouldn't stop his assualt o the Mob they sent the Palestian guy to kill him. This is all from an A&E documantary, it is not proven but seems like the most likely scenario because they can make all of the connections.

 

Living in Mass where the Kennedeys are Gods and saying that might get you driven off a brigde on a small island of Martha's Vineyard. So I don't usaullay go yelling that from the moutnains.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

We are not a democracy we are a republic.

 

The electoral college does not need changing. It's worked fine for the last 213 years and because some whinny liberals can't accept the fact that Gore lost than that's tough.

[Guest J*ingus]

The electoral college does not need changing. It's worked fine for the last 213 years and because some whinny liberals can't accept the fact that Gore lost than that's tough.

I don't consider any system where Candidate #1 gets half a million more votes than Candidate #2, yet still loses according to the rules, to have "worked fine". It hasn't worked fine, there have been no less than FOUR times when someone won the popular vote but lost the election.

 

It has nothing to do with who won or lost, I'd be saying the exact same thing if Gore won. America was founded on the principle of rule by majority, and the electoral college as it is now does not abide by that principle.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Nixon was cheated out of the election by JFK's Mafia buddies in NJ and Illinois.

The difference is Nixon refrained from asking for a recount for the good of the country.

 

He was within a vote of the Presidency and had it taken away from him.

How exactly did he have the presidency "taken away from him."

 

Then when RFK wouldn't stop his assualt o the Mob they sent the Palestian guy to kill him.

 

Sirhan Sirhan lived on my dad's street when they were both kids.

[Guest EricMM]

Democrats and Republicans are both horrid, and until the majority of the country realizes this, nothing worth while will be accomplished in this country. Everyone seems so heated in fighting for a side, that they don't realize that both major parties have sold the american people out.

 

I have believed this for a while. I have lost faith in politicians like Gore and Bush. I was vaguely into McCain, very into Nader, and thats it. Its the same monster with two different heads. I wish all the people who feel called to run this country, and who win some sort of primarys could equally be part of an election. But campaigning is money money money. I don't know how to change this. Will someone PLEASE tell me how to change this. I voted for NADER for chrissakes. I don't have the answer, I feel like this country needs one, because we are in a fucking plutocracy (if a plutocracy is a country ruled by the rich, if not nm) dictatorship. If the Dems and Reps are practically identical, whats the point of voting. Republocrats is a very valid word people.

 

-Eric

[Guest NoCalMike]

Vote 3rd party, ALWAYS........

[Guest Some Guy]

Calling the US a "Plutocratic dictatorship" is stupid. Politicians eventually answer to the people. If the people don't like what they did then they're gone. LBJ, H. W. Bush, and plenty of Congressmen and Senators have not been reelected or have been forced into not running because it's a lost cause. I do think that we tend to get, "It's for your good" a lot from politicians, where they'll pass something that people don't want or don't understand because "it's fro our own good." We get that a lot from the Dems. But I'd hardly call us a dictatorship.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Vote 3rd party, ALWAYS........

 

Because THAT encourages active thought and participation.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

No they probably wouldn't. Did you hear any Republicans blaming Clinton/Gore for Global Crossing even though the connection between them and Global is far greater than that of Bush and Enron? >>>

 

 

Quite bluntly, the connection between Clinton/Gore and Enron is far greater than the connection between Bush and Enron.

-=Mike

 

...They didn't make their big money under Bush

[Guest Some Guy]

That's true as well Mike.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Gore is 100x smarter than Bush, but I wouldn't vote for him to be president. George Dubya is one of the least intelligent and experienced presidents.....

 

Well, one of the two nearly failed out of seminary school and had to go to a journalism school instead.

 

I, of course, shan't mention names.

-=Mike

 

...That would be a little silly, no?>>>

 

Gore failed because he didn't agree with his teacher on several of his own moral issues. So they just failed him outright. Bush got into HARVARD on a C average in high school. Hmmm, looks suspicious to me.......>>>

 

 

Bush also GRADUATED from Harvard Business School which puts him in far more elite company than Gore.

 

 

<<<They say he didn't have much experience for the office because he was only on his second term in elected office as Governor. Gore had been in Washington since the 80's.>>>

 

 

Gore had been in Washington all of his life. Let's not claim otherwise.

 

And since you seem to be claiming that Bush is where he is due to outside influences (or, his dad), keep in mind that Gore is in the exact same boat.

 

 

<<<He was a Presidential contender in 88' (Back when he had an accent). He knows what shit means and how things get done.>>>

 

 

Gore is a clueless putz. His ideas are weak (at best) and produced virtually nothing of note as a Senator. As VP, he was useless---but that's just how the job is.

 

 

<<<Dems are not lower class, they are just as much people as Republicans are.>>>

 

 

Didn't say they were lower class. They just tend to get the benefit of the doubt from the press more often.

 

 

<<<They whined about winning the election because they had well over 500,000 more votes than the Republican party in the pres election.>>>

 

 

And how much of that was because of the MASSIVE problems in Kansas City? Or the networks inaccurately calling Florida before the polls closed?

 

Even Bob Beckel claimed that the Florida network call cost Bush 400,000 votes---and that is, by far, the most conservative estimate.

 

 

<<<He has a right to be angry. If this had happened to the Republican party brimstone and hellfire would have engulfed Washington D.C.>>>

 

 

No, it wouldn't have.

 

It DID happen to the GOP.

 

In 1960.

 

Nixon didn't gripe.

 

Sad that Dick Nixon is more honorable than Gore.

 

 

<<<And both sides do a fair share of mudslinging. That's what politics is all about these days. Otherwise we'd had a McCain-Brady election in 00'. >>>

 

 

Except that McCain and Bradley are less qualified than Bush and Gore.

-=Mike

 

...Face it, McCain had virtually no Republican support and Dems don't support Bradley.

[Guest Some Guy]

It's funny that Bush is stupid and a former Basketball player would make a better President than him according to some.

 

You don't think that certain people think that if you disagree with their political idealogy that that automatically makes them stupid, do you?

 

Let's see Reagan and both Bushes have been called stupid by one side and Clinton was never called that by the other (he was called a lot of things, most of them true but no one questioned his inteligence, his thought process maybe but not his brain). Hmmmmmm. What could that mean?

I think we've figured out which party has more class on a national scale.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

There were some seriously vicious stuff run against McCain in Michigan during the primaries.>>>

 

 

But McCain said nothing negative, huh?

 

 

<<<Not that Gore didn't do it to Bradley, but McCain campaigned on the issues, not Bush.>>>

 

 

What issues?

 

 

<<<I didn't see anything really smearing from McCain. What he is doing is not TRASHING, it is CRITICIZING. He doesn't say something that is blantently not true and try to scare people into voting for his thing.>>>

 

 

What lie did Bush say about McCain?

 

 

<<<He is allowed to since he has his own brain and personality and is allowed stuff like his own opinion in the Consititution. Remember that document? God, you act like Dubya is God or something. Not EVERYONE likes the President in this country. People have the right to their own opinion, otherwise we'd be a pack of zombies. Jesus, if I acted like this to every Republican who talked bad about Clinton, I don't know how many people I would have ticked off. And don't whine about about McCain trashing your party. We have Zell Miller to deal with.>>>

 

 

You also have James Traficant. <rim shot>

 

 

<<<The GOP showed nothing accept they don't know how to pick a candidate at all.>>>

 

 

They picked the right guy. McCain is not the most stable guy out there (by almost all accounts). Heck, he couldn't win primaries to save his life without Democrats voting in the GOP primary to help him out.

 

 

<<<Gore came back in only a couple weeks to win the popular vote after being down by quite a number of points.>>>

 

 

When was this the case? Gore never trailed Bush by much.

 

 

<<<They don't know how to elect one because a majority of people voted for Al Gore, not George W. Bush.>>>

 

 

An untruth, actually. Several things conspired against Bush in the election.

 

 

<<<They had to call on the Republican Supreme Court to install the President.>>>

 

 

Ah, the Republican Supreme Court. Funny, they make decisions you support and I doubt you refer to them as such.

 

 

<<<I mean, had Bush said "Yeah, count the votes. I am positive I won so I have no fear of a recount." Al Gore would have looked horrible when they find out that he hadn't actually gotten the state. But he didn't.>>>

 

 

Of course, there WAS a statewide recount. That was automatic.

 

And Gore LOST it.

 

So Gore asked for certain counties to be counted alone.

 

When votes are to be officially counted is determined SOLELY by the Secretary of State (you know, that Katherine Harris woman that the left ripped to shreds afterwards).

 

Fact is, the Florida Supreme Court was inventing law out of thin air and the U.S Supreme Court, correctly, stopped them.

 

 

<<<It was the dumbest thing they could have done because it looked like they were trying to steal the election from the candidate that GOT THE POPULAR VOTE!>>>

 

 

Except that a recount already happened and Bush won.

 

When the counts were due, Bush was leading.

 

Gore didn't win Florida.

 

 

<<<Where the HELL do you get it that the Dems threw around the Constitution? They asked for a recount, which by state and federal law is totally legal in an election this close.>>>

 

 

And they got one. You keep missing that. There was a statewide recount that was triggered automatically.

 

The left asked for a re-vote in the state---then selective recounts.

 

 

<<<Campaign Fianance is a LEFT THING? Both Republicans and Dems passed it in the Senate, so don't go there.>>>

 

 

More Dems than Republicans and the bill is blatantly unconstitutional.

 

 

<<<It says that "If you want to run an add that says something blantantly untrue about someone that you must reveal who you really are.">>>

 

 

No, it says that 60 days before an election, you CAN'T run the ads. Period.

 

Freedom of speech is a good thing---not something to be curtailed.

 

 

<<<These ads are horrid; they are literally slander, which ISN'T allowed in the Constitution.>>>

 

 

Actually, political speech is completely protected.

 

And the ads may be misleading, but they are never slanderous.

 

 

<<<I'm sure the Republicans will do fine without running fear ads just days before the election day.>>>

 

 

Don't even say the GOP does that when the Dems had ads in Missouri saying that a vote for Bush is a vote for lynching.

 

 

<<<And both parties won't raise inordinate amounts of money through soft money loopholes. A great addition to this is to give political candidates free T.V. time. Take the money out of the equation. >>>

 

 

Why should TV networks be expected to give their product away for free?

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Honestly, Bush could Nuke a country and his approval rating would be 86%.>>>

 

 

That is the benefit of all Presidents. Lord knows Clinton would bomb countries to distract people from embarrassing things.

 

 

<<<For him, 9/11 was the greatest moment in his administration. It came right in to save him when the dems were proving that his budget didn't work.>>>

 

 

Umm, okay. Interesting theory.

 

Completely inaccurate in every sense of the word, mind you, but interesting.

 

 

<<<BOTH parties "throw away" the Constitution. No one is "innocent". Both parties intepret it so differently that each thinks the other is always in violation of it. Welcome to politics.

 

You came off REALLY strong for Dubya to me. Sorry if I inferred too much.

 

All news media is not "Liberal". Ever watch Fox News? Detroit News is the Conservative counterpart in to the Detroit Free Press here in Michigan. All media isn't out to get the GOP. That's just a piss-poor excuse to why the news doesn't favor you all the time.>>>

 

 

When vastly more than 80% of all reporters vote Democratic, it would be naive to assume that their perspective ISN'T skewed.

 

 

<<<Deal with it. The news isn't always on our side, either.>>>

 

 

More often than not.

 

 

<<<I'm talking "Hand Count". He has a right to that.>>>

 

 

Actually, no he doesn't. You have a right to a hand recount under Florida law when you can demonstrate machine failure or mass errors.

 

That was never proven at any point.

 

 

<<<Eventually it was proven that he lost Florida fair and square. Everyone has to admit that. It has been shown. But during the recount process the recounts were stopped and started and stopped and started and stopped and started that no one could honestly prove who won.>>>

 

 

Look at from Bush's point of view for a moment.

 

Let's say Gore gets his recount.

 

And he somehow wins, albeit controversially.

 

At that point, Bush has NO chance to contest which is unfair.

 

Besides, it doesn't matter. The Florida legislature already stated that the state went to Bush so even if nothing was resolved by the counts, Florida's electoral votes were spoken for.

 

 

<<<They never got through an actual hand count.>>>

 

 

They had no right to expect one.

 

 

<<<Court cases stopped it so many times that it seemed like around thirty, but only one handcount ever was ordered.>>>

 

 

The ONLY thing Gore had a "right" to was the auto recount right after the election.

 

You know, the statewide recount that he STILL lost.

 

 

<<<Don't fool yourself there. G.W. should have allowed a handcount and laughed when it came out his way.>>>

 

 

A hand count that, by most accounts, very well might not have happened in time for the Florida electoral votes to be selected in time to be counted during the electoral college vote.

 

Yeah, I see that being fair.

 

 

<<<But he didn't. He backed himself into a corner and it ended up a huge mess.>>>

 

 

Gore was the one filing suits left and right.

 

 

<<<The Supreme Court did commendeer it.>>>

 

 

The Supreme Court had no other choice.

 

 

<<<Whether they did it for better or for worse it doesn't matter now, 'cause we've had a president for two years.>>>

 

 

And we've had a better choice for President.

 

 

<<<Yes, I agree. He did win the Electoral college, fair and square. That decides the Presidency, no matter how many lawyers you have counting votes. That's life. Al Gore still has the right to feel cheated since he 1) Won the popular vote.>>>

 

 

And when politicans run a campaign to win the popular vote, it might be relevant.

 

But, no candidate runs for the popular vote.

 

 

<<<2) Lost Florida by only a handful of votes, and 3) Had he won Florida it would have changed the winner of the election.>>>

 

 

Hey, if Nixon wasn't screwed in Chicago and Texas, he would've won in 1960.

 

He didn't go to court over it, though.

 

 

<<<It's not like Al Gore was beaten out by 100 Electoral votes like Nixon was. He was beaten by 3 and only needed 1. Don't make it seem like there was an "overwhelming majority" for Bush.>>>

 

 

You don't need an overwhelming majority.

 

You need a simple majority.

 

 

<<<Al Gore really should come out for Election Voting Reform, like a standardized voting way and such (Take all the guesswork off) and get a National Holiday for Election day so as many people as possible can get out and vote.>>>

 

 

People are lazy and won't vote. If they won't vote, tough for them.

 

 

<<<Because the autoworkers in my state (Michigan) got the day off put Gore safely over the top. We can't change the Electoral College, really. Nothing would be nearly as fair. Just have to deal with it.

 

The Constitution does protect free speech. But not blantant slander and libel.>>>

 

 

Political speech is protected.

 

 

<<<Neither do any of the 50 states in the Union. Those ads that are banned 50 days before an election are demigogual ads which tell outright lies to the population.>>>

 

 

No, they're ANY advocacy ads.

 

 

<<<I've seen ones that sad Gore wanted to raise gas prices to $4.50 a gallon, and others that said Bush was going to lower minimium wage to $2.50.>>>

 

 

I never saw either of these ads, so I don't care one way or the other about them.

 

 

<<<These are total lies. They request that the ads tell the people where the funds for these are coming from, so they can't hide behind those stupid names like "Citizens for Keeping Gas Prices Down" and stuff.>>>

 

 

No, they request that they can't run the ads, period.

 

 

<<<We find out that they are funded by the NRA, ACLU, Dems, GOP. Nothing in violation of the Constitiution. Plus, the Constitution was made when there was no real Campaign Financing like today.>>>

 

 

And your point is?

 

There was no internet when the Constitution was written. Nor was there TV or radio.

 

I suppose the press SHOULD be censored because of that.

 

 

<<<There weren't attack ads like there are today, either. >>>

 

 

You obviously have never studied electoral history. Heck, newspapers in big cities would flat-out state their stant and UNLOAD on politicans they disagreed with.

-=Mike

[Guest EricMM]

I don't see why anyone here is defening politicians anyways. You are both arguing who is better, Oswald or Booth. They're both assasins. Fuck Gore, fuck Bush, fuck the 2000 election entirely.

 

I'm all for arguing political theory et all, but don't support a party just because you feel closer to them. That's called settling for the lesser of two evils, and I REALLY think that's not what we should be voting for here. I'm a liberal, and Gore is NOT my ideal president. I'd more likely vote in DrTom (without access to the doomsday switch you bastard )

 

Perhaps DrTom wouldn't be as vulnurable to fucking bribes as all of Washington. Sorry I mean donations.

 

Holy shit did I just call a mod a bastard? Sorry. But it's like a line from my favorite book

 

-Eric

[Guest NoCalMike]

<<I don't see why anyone here is defening politicians anyways. You are both arguing who is better, Oswald or Booth. They're both assasins. Fuck Gore, fuck Bush, fuck the 2000 election entirely.>>

 

EricMM, in a nutshell, I totally agreee with your assesment. I find it funny yet depressing, that when Ralph Nader would appear on politically correct, some other guests would often cite they thought he was a better candidate for the presidency than Bush or Gore, yet they voted for one of the big two parties, simply because they thought, he had no chance to win and it was a wasted vote. Jesse Ventura put it best. Voting for politicians/issues is not like a horse race. You are not supposed to go into it voting for who you think will win, but, who YOU think will best represent you and your beliefs. There are a lot of people who would probobaly vote 3rd party if the Dems and Repubs, didn't hold a monopoly over things such as debates, tv airtime, etc.....The problem with our system is that it is the wealthy who benefit and come out on top in any and every situation.

[Guest EricMM]

Hence, IMO, a plutocracy (if I have the right word).

 

The rich pick the possible rulers, then we pick the actual rulers. Tell me this doesn't happen. Tell me someone without massive fundage could possibly win the primaries. I want to hear something laugable lol

 

-Eric

[Guest TJH]

What completely baffles me about the U.S system, is that you have elections on weekdays. Why not have it on a Saturday, like pretty much every other country on earth, and where far more people will be able to vote?

[Guest Powerplay]

I believe it is a date that is set by the Constitution. "The election of the President shall be held on the second Tuesday of November" or something like that. Both liberals and conservatives are waiting for the other side to try and change it so they can say how they are "Throwing away the Constitution" .

[Guest DrTom]

"I'd more likely vote in DrTom (without access to the doomsday switch you bastard)

 

Thanks, but I'm not 35 yet. When I am, though, I'll get back to you.

 

"Perhaps DrTom wouldn't be as vulnurable to fucking bribes as all of Washington. Sorry I mean donations."

 

Everyone has a price, including me. However, the first thing I would do is kick all the lobbyists out of Washington and move for term limits in Congress, so the potential for corruption would be reduced.

 

Actually, that's the second thing I'd do. The first would be double all aid to Israel and tell every other country in that part of the world to fuck off. No more oil sales to us. Let's see who that turns out better for. See, I really am a bastard.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I personally hate when both sides throw around the "don't mess with the constitution" crap. It is hilarious how each side uses certain parts of the constitution way out of context in order to get their agenda over. They ALL are the ones making the constitution a joke.

[Guest Some Guy]

<<I don't see why anyone here is defening politicians anyways. You are both arguing who is better, Oswald or Booth. They're both assasins. Fuck Gore, fuck Bush, fuck the 2000 election entirely.>>

 

EricMM, in a nutshell, I totally agreee with your assesment. I find it funny yet depressing, that when Ralph Nader would appear on politically correct, some other guests would often cite they thought he was a better candidate for the presidency than Bush or Gore, yet they voted for one of the big two parties, simply because they thought, he had no chance to win and it was a wasted vote. Jesse Ventura put it best. Voting for politicians/issues is not like a horse race. You are not supposed to go into it voting for who you think will win, but, who YOU think will best represent you and your beliefs. There are a lot of people who would probobaly vote 3rd party if the Dems and Repubs, didn't hold a monopoly over things such as debates, tv airtime, etc.....The problem with our system is that it is the wealthy who benefit and come out on top in any and every situation.

Eric, people defend politicians that they like and believe to be reasonably honorable. I think that Bush is far more honorable then either Gore or Nader and Clinton makes Bush look like the Pope by comparison.

 

voting for Ralph Nader not only makes me question your sanity considering the guy is fucking nuts but it is throwing your vote away. Nader cried and whined that he didn't have the money to win when in reality he didn't have the proper agenda to win. Hey Ralph people like cars and to keep at least some of the money that they've earned, since you don't like either you don't connect with the mainsteam voting populace. Nader was he worst choice of the three and it showed at the polls. Listening to what the dunder heads on Politically Incorrect say is not the best way to decide who is the best candidate. The whole show revovles around one Conservative making a truthful statemant and then getting shouted down by a bunch of ignorant leftist actors and the ignorant leftist host. I don't care what Snoop Doggy Dogg says about politics, he guy doesn't have a High School diploma for Christ's sake.

As far as voting goes you should vote for the person who best represents your feelings and believe it or not most people more closely associate themselves with either the Democratic or Republican agenda. This country has almost always had a two party system for a reason.

[Guest EricMM]

As far as voting goes you should vote for the person who best represents your feelings and believe it or not most people more closely associate themselves with either the Democratic or Republican agenda. This country has almost always had a two party system for a reason.

 

I think the first part of that segment is not in line with the second part. I firmly believe that if there were 10 canditates instead of TWO there would be more of a spectrum. People like DrTom wouldn't have to vote for Bush, and people like me wouldn't have to vote for Gore. But the republicans want to keep a 2 party system, because they're a member, and the democrats want to keep a 2 party system, because they're a member too. Therefore NOONE tries to change it, because everyone with any sway in the govt is GOP or Dem.

 

voting for Ralph Nader not only makes me question your sanity considering the guy is fucking nuts but it is throwing your vote away.

 

How in the world can you say that? I think my vote should go to the person who I agree with. That's what it's FOR. It would be thrown away if I supported some fake ass Vice President who did NOTHING impressive, and sucked soo hard he lost his own state, or some dumbass Good Old Boy who wanted to be president like daddy, and would whore america to the highest bidder. Fuck, they're both Good Old Boys and they both whore america. How can you tell me I wasted MY vote when I voted for the person I wanted to see win? Insult my intelligence all you want but if you compromised your vote because the person you wanted to see win probably wouldn't win, then you'd be a COMPLETE conformist sheep.

 

Nader didn't get any votes because he had no presence. I can't believe you think he was represented fairly. Now perhaps he wouldn't have won anyways. Perhaps he did have some socialist tendancies. But Honestly, I agree more with having a earnings limit than bending over backwards for lobbyists. Perhaps one isn't the "american way" but whos to say it couldn't be implemented correctly? Whereas I see the other way as pure corruption that is so rich it's unpunishable.

 

-Eric

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The electoral college does not need changing. It's worked fine for the last 213 years and because some whinny liberals can't accept the fact that Gore lost than that's tough.

I don't consider any system where Candidate #1 gets half a million more votes than Candidate #2, yet still loses according to the rules, to have "worked fine". It hasn't worked fine, there have been no less than FOUR times when someone won the popular vote but lost the election.

 

It has nothing to do with who won or lost, I'd be saying the exact same thing if Gore won. America was founded on the principle of rule by majority, and the electoral college as it is now does not abide by that principle.

It worked fine because it's how the founding fathers set it up to work. They didn't want the smaller states to feel left out in electing the president, which would be the case with the popular vote.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

What completely baffles me about the U.S system, is that you have elections on weekdays. Why not have it on a Saturday, like pretty much every other country on earth, and where far more people will be able to vote?>>>

 

 

Do you honestly think that voting occurring during the week is why Americans don't vote?

 

They don't vote because we tend to be lazy.

 

And I'm ALL for the lazy ones out there not voting.

-=Mike

[Guest NoCalMike]

<<<<I think that Bush is far more honorable then either Gore or Nader and Clinton makes Bush look like the Pope by comparison.>>>>

 

Bwahahahahahahaha, Bush, honorable eh? That is a good one.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Bush, has heavily benefited from being a wartime president. His agenda and his politics have been tanked by both the left and the right, and he merely happened to be in the right place at the right time. He is handling the war for the most part just like any other president would given the circumstances. Just like Daddy, however the war will end, and his agenda will come up in conversation again, and he will fail. I think however the terrorists attacks resulting war will go on long enough for him to get re-elected, then about 2 years into his 2nd term, people will turn on him.

 

 

<<<The whole show revovles around one Conservative making a truthful statemant and then getting shouted down by a bunch of ignorant leftist actors and the ignorant leftist host. I don't care what Snoop Doggy Dogg says about politics, he guy doesn't have a High School diploma for Christ's sake.>>

 

SomeGuy: Wow, no bias there I guess, your mind is already made up that the conservative is the one making the "truthful" statement. I bet you also believe FoxNews is fair and decent and honest reporting, only because they have a conservative bias.

[Guest LesnarLunatic]

Let me just tell you all this.

 

Bashing Gore for a failure doesn't make Bush any less of a complete idiot. I'd say this is trying to bring down the bar so Bush wouldn't be so far under it.

 

Hell, Bush could be a god damn genius but he won't show it because his mouth is full of marbles when it comes to most public speaking.

 

I'll make a deal, if the GOP promises to lay all the lies and bashing related to Clinton and sex in a grave, we'll stop telling the truth about Bush being an idiot.

 

Gore blew it. He doesn't deserve a second chance.

 

Do you people that blame the economy on Clinton also credit Reagan for the good economy? Let's face it, THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT CONTROL THE ECONOMY! This is not Soviet Russia where the economy is centralized.

 

One last thing, we do not have a Liberal Media or a Conservative Media in this country. We have a Tabloid Media, which is out for their ratings. If they feel the story will get them more attention, they will run it, if they feel the story will hurt them, they won't show it.